Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dinosaurs, humans coexist in U.S. creation museum
Reuters ^ | 1 hour, 39 minutes ago | Andrea Hopkins

Posted on 01/14/2007 5:31:07 PM PST by Tim Long

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 701-716 next last
To: SALChamps03

"...the moon landing was fake, Elvis is alive, etc."

Hey, leave Elvis out of this. Show some respect.


341 posted on 01/16/2007 12:28:31 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; Tim Long
Man that is just about one of the best spins on history ever. And then you link it to a cloaked talk-origins source to seal your deal, NOT

Wolf
342 posted on 01/16/2007 1:01:48 AM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: zylphed

Bacteria became mitochondria? How did cellular metabolism occur before that? And what made them change? And those must have been tiny bacteria... and what evidence proves that mitochondria were once discrete bacteria? Interesting. I've never heard that before.


343 posted on 01/16/2007 1:19:54 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

"Show me where the Catholic church teaches the creationist nonsense. "


If ever any of your arguments are to be taken seriously, CS, you need to understand one very simple fact: the Catholic Church believes in Creationism.

It is an a priori fact. Without Creationism, there IS NO Catholic Church. Jeez.

You have just come right out and said that the Pope, all clergy, and the masses of faithful, are all atheists. Oh, except for a few dumb Catholics, scattered here and there.


344 posted on 01/16/2007 1:25:45 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: zylphed

"40% of the human genome encodes things called retroelements, which are pretty much all essentially dead viruses that have inserted themselves into our genome. "


Yes, I've heard that before. How do scientists know that parts of our genetic makeup is virus pieces? How did they come to that conclusion? Is that the only possible explanation for the evidence?


345 posted on 01/16/2007 1:38:09 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; fabian

"...he knows that fabian..."

Yep. When dealing with some evolutionist fanatics, especially the strongly anti-Christian faction, you are expected to prove every assertion, no matter how obvious, while they sit back watch. If you tell them the sun rises in the east, they ask for a specific scientific, peer-reviewed, published article, with a list of the writer's credentials. Then they make some sneering comment referring to your belief in a flat Earth.


346 posted on 01/16/2007 1:54:50 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: jim35
mitochondria were once discrete bacteria

Well that is the theory anyway. And that (as all in that kind) forms the bedrock to their mountain of evidence. So don't dare question that, and especially don't speak or publish that doubt in the world of academia-maniacs.

Wolf
347 posted on 01/16/2007 2:13:53 AM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

Ridiculous? Maybe so, Ivan. But it sure would have been cool. Imagine, an order of ribs that could tip your car over; quarrying rocks on the back of a big brontosaurus; opening your canned dino meat with the beak of a terasaur! Of course, putting the cat out could be somewhat problematic...


348 posted on 01/16/2007 3:11:08 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

"...trying to discredit facts by avoiding the facts and pointing out someones affiliation..."

It's called "genetic fallacy." Discrediting an idea or assertion, because of the originator of the idea's personal traits is common, and many of us are guilty of it.


349 posted on 01/16/2007 3:25:52 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

Is this all your original work?


350 posted on 01/16/2007 3:51:26 AM PST by jim35 ("...when the lion and the lamb lie down together, ...we'd better damn sure be the lion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: jim35
It looks to be a talk-origins cut and paste

Mechanisms that Increase Genetic Variation

Evos are loathe to 'cut and paste' if you give the posts any credence.

Wolf
351 posted on 01/16/2007 4:15:28 AM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”

The question of the firmament (Genesis 1:6) has also generated various interpretations, but we need to keep in mind that the Hebrew word (raqia) means simply "expanse," as in "a great expanse of water between California and Hawaii." An essentially synonymous English term would be "space." And just as "space" can be used to refer to space either as an entity or to a particular space, so likewise for the word "firmament."

There are at least two—probably three—special "firmaments" mentioned in Scripture. The most exalted firmament is under God's throne (Ezekiel 1:26). Also, there is an atmospheric firmament, where birds fly, and a stellar firmament, where the stars are (Genesis 1:20,14). There are likewise three "heavens" (note II Corinthians 12:2), and it is significant that God called the firmament "Heaven" (Genesis 1:8), where the Hebrew for "heaven" is actually a plural noun (shamayim), frequently translated "heavens." These distinctions are not often made by creationists when discussing a particular firmament (or space, or heaven), but they are Biblical, and it is important to take careful note of the context in each case.

This brings up another controversial subject, the canopy theory, the essential component of which is "the waters which were above the firmament" (Genesis 1:7). If the particular firmament (or space, or heaven) in mind here is the atmosphere, and if the waters were in the vapor state, then many Biblical facts and scientific relationships are beautifully explained. However, there are certain scientific difficulties that are still unresolved, and there is again a temptation to abandon the theory because of these.

from http://www.icr.org/article/503/

352 posted on 01/16/2007 5:52:53 AM PST by DungeonMaster (Acts 17:11 also known as sola scriptura.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
You obviously don't know what naturalistic means. Why am I not surprised.

Because you are incapable of accepting deeper theological alternatives. Of course God set in motion naturalistic phenomena, including evolution. His creation speaks of this. But I would not expect you to neither care not understand that. It is beyond your grasp and pointless to discuss with you.

353 posted on 01/16/2007 5:56:59 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

Interesting.

Thanks!


354 posted on 01/16/2007 6:14:24 AM PST by RockinRight (To compare Congress to drunken sailors is an insult to drunken sailors. - Ronald W. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

Those would fit in a pretty small space.


355 posted on 01/16/2007 6:21:53 AM PST by DungeonMaster (Acts 17:11 also known as sola scriptura.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
sort of petrification instant

I checked the posters listing. There is no such thing as instant petrification. The attempts to make petrification all have maybe, close, nearly, you add all the synonyms. But no real instant petrification, sort of like making gold out of lead.

356 posted on 01/16/2007 6:35:03 AM PST by org.whodat (Never let the facts get in the way of a good assumption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: jim35

Sigh......I never said life was one big coincidence. Stop putting words into people's mouths.

I asked some creationists to prove their assertions, and I got nothing but the usual hyperbolic spin, the scientific ignorance and the usual common sense disconnect.

Life does exist in many regions, which attests to its skill at adaptation, I suppose we could create life in a lab if we had controlled conditions and several million year to work with.


357 posted on 01/16/2007 6:44:55 AM PST by Central Scrutiniser (Never Let a Theocon Near a Textbook. Teach evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: jim35
You have just come right out and said that the Pope, all clergy, and the masses of faithful, are all atheists. Oh, except for a few dumb Catholics, scattered here and there.

More abject stupidity from you, more reason for everyone to see that you are a crank, with very few argumentative skills, just very stupid statements like the one above.

358 posted on 01/16/2007 6:46:47 AM PST by Central Scrutiniser (Never Let a Theocon Near a Textbook. Teach Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: jim35
If radiocarbon dating is only good for 50,000 year-old specimens, or younger... how do we get the ages of older specimens? I can see where we can extrapolate ages of geological formations from what is in each layer, etc, but how do we know, for example, how old a rock is?

Good question.

Carbon-14 dating is based on the isotope carbon-14, which has a half-life of about 5700 years. This means that every 5700 years, half of your carbon-14 has gone away because of beta decay. Because there is very little to start with, after 5 or 8 half lives, there are increasing problems measuring the beta decay against the background radiation.

To date older materials you simply need isotopes with longer half lives!

On this website: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens there is a table of naturally occurring isotopes. These columns are the parent isotope, what it decays into, and the time it takes:

Samarium-147    Neodymium-143    106 billion
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8 billion
Rhenium-187 Osmium-187 42 billion
Lutetium-176 Hafnium-176 38 billion
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14 billion
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.5 billion
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.26 billion
Uranium-235 Lead-207 0.7 billion
Beryllium-10 Boron-10 1.52 million
Chlorine-36 Argon-36 300000
Carbon-14 Nitrogen-14 5715

Many of these are used for dating. Each has its own particular uses and limitations. For example, carbon-14 dating can only be used where there is carbon, so it is good for once-living things (bone, shell, charcoal, peat, etc.).

Check out the website I linked, above, for a lot more good detail.

359 posted on 01/16/2007 7:54:43 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
The cambrian explosion was basically the earliest period ever found where species 'began' en mass-

Putting aside quibbles about the accuracy of this statement, I take it you accept that the Cambrian period commenced approximately 542 million years ago and ended approximately 488 million years ago, and that you are therefore not a young earth creationist. Correct?

before that period, you have basically nothing, and certainly no transitional species

Again, putting aside your notion of "basically nothing" pre-Cambrian, I take it from this statement that you accept the existence of transitionals in the fossil record from at least the Cambrian period forward. Correct?

there's plenty on the net explaining the explosion

And you accept the explanations on the "net" that the duration of the "explosion" was approximately 30 million years (a kind of a slow motion explosion, if you will). Correct?

As for your "built in protection levels" that prevent speciation, you seem to be contradicting yourself. It certainly appears that you accept the existence of "transitionals", yet you state:

the protections are built in to the cells- they prevent foreign info from tainting the species info- there are several layers of these protections which ensure that species will always remain within their own kind

Are you contending that speciation does not occur, but that the fossil record nevertheless contains transitionals?

And with respect to your "protections", what, precisely, are these "protections"? Invisible force fields of some sort? Or maybe armor plating? Or some kind of "DNA-acide"? Since this is the first I've ever heard about "built in protections," perhaps you could be a tad more specific, or at least direct me to some kind of literature on the subject.

we find htese celular protections going all the way back to the cambrian age

We have Cambrian cells to study?

360 posted on 01/16/2007 8:27:42 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 701-716 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson